Do you have a dumb question that you're kind of embarrassed to ask in the main thread? Is there something you're just not sure about?
This is your opportunity to ask questions. No question too simple or too silly.
Culture war topics are accepted, and proposals for a better intro post are appreciated.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
As mentioned by someone else in this thread, there's a big difference between "voluntarily choosing to undergo comparable suffering" and "voluntarily choosing to undergo comparable suffering in a way that will actually benefit someone else".
Let's say you* are in a relationship with a woman who's more attractive than you. You've determined that she sacrificed something by getting into a relationship with you rather than someone more conventionally attractive, and want her to know that you appreciate this sacrifice.
A normal person would demonstrate his appreciation for his girlfriend's sacrifice by making a sacrifice of his own which benefits his girlfriend: taking her out for a nice meal, buying her a thoughtful gift, offering to look after the kids so she can enjoy a night out with her girlfriends etc.. This is such an ordinary part of the dynamics of any healthy relationship that it hardly even needs mentioning.
An insane person would demonstrate his appreciation by taking a hammer from his toolbox, smashing all of the fingers on his left hand to bits, then waving his irreparably maimed hand in front of his terrified girlfriend while screaming at her "LOOK I KNOW BEING IN A RELATIONSHIP WITH ME CAUSES YOU TO SUFFER SO I MADE MYSELF SUFFER JUST AS MUCH SO NOW I'M NOT A HYPOCRITE PLEASE LOVE ME"
No prizes for guessing which one your hike to Alaska more closely resembles. Going on a hike to Alaska technically demonstrates a willingness to undergo suffering comparable in degree to the amount you think you're inflicting on some woman by asking her to be your girlfriend. But she doesn't benefit from this trek in any way, so why should she care? Willingly suffering so that others might benefit is noble and admirable; willingly suffering in a way which benefits no one is meaningless. If you don't understand why I'm baffled as to how you think anyone would be impressed by the nobility of your pointless trek to Alaska, ask yourself whether there's anything intrinsically noble or admirable about a lunatic smashing his hand with a hammer. God may be impressed by self-flagellation for its own sake, but we mere mortals tend to find it pointless, masturbatory and a waste of time and resources.
Imagine Dave is dating Alice, who was previously in a relationship with Bob. Dave gets into an argument with Alice and accuses her of not caring about his feelings. Alice says it's not true and starts listing off all of the sacrifices she's made. Only she's listing off the sacrifices she made for Bob's benefit, not Dave's. No one would be persuaded that the sacrifices Alice made for Bob's benefit demonstrate how much she cares for and appreciates Dave. No woman will be persuaded that your trek to Alaska (carried out before you even met her) demonstrates how much you appreciate the sacrifice she made by getting into a relationship with you.
*Or @SkookumTree, if we're still maintaining this charade.
What'll it take to establish I'm not the same person as him? I'm the 40-something permanently-unemployed Alaskan who used to comment at SSC as Kevin C. until Scott banned me, then used the same handle at /r/themotte that I'm using here.
Yeah, I'm from the northeast US, not an Alaskan. Never even set foot in the state. A few people from the SSC Discord have seen pictures of me: Cypren and SomethingElse for sure. Skeward possibly, I don't recall who else.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I understand. The meaninglessness of the Hock is a feature, not a bug: I'd be asking my girlfriend to make a huge and fundamentally meaningless sacrifice by being with me, given my subpar-but-not-Quasimodo physical appearance and autism.
I didn't mention very much the 'suffer so that your girlfriend benefits' thing; I had taken this as more or less given that I'd do my best and make unusually large sacrifices in order to keep my girlfriend happy. The Hock may be - but hopefully isn't - a prologue for the kind of determination, conscientiousness, and self-sacrifice I'll need to display in order to maintain a relationship with someone that isn't morbidly obese, has a job, isn't a hard drug user or danger to herself or others, and can manage her own affairs.
Further: I don't know how much I'll talk about the Hock after I complete it, assuming that I survive. I think that the Hock is going to alter my character and personality. I've read accounts of martial artists being able to recognize other martial artists from how they carried themselves, and combat veterans have talked about being able to recognize other people that have been in life-or-death struggles against other people. I know that if I told people about the Hock - even if I called it a "solo backpacking trip" people would either think I was a liar or crazy. That too - the stupidity of the Hock - is a feature, not a bug. Because it's pretty dumb to be in a relationship with some dude that disgusts you just 'cause he's into you.
You know what, med school allowing, go volunteer in Ukraine for a few months. They're probably not too picky about doctors, even if they're only med students, and you might find a woman to bring back with you.
Certainly bigger bragging rights and street cred than a glorified trekking expedition through bumfuck nowhere, and it might even carry a lower risk of dying.
More options
Context Copy link
Going on your stupid hike is meaningless: it's imposing suffering upon yourself to no end and for no tangible benefit. Putting up with the slings and arrows every relationship throws at you because of how much you and your partner love each other is the very opposite of "meaningless": it's pretty much a defining part of the human condition.
And yet I'll note that the vast majority of men throughout human history in stable healthy romantic relationships were able to maintain the desired level of determination, conscientiousness and self-sacrifice without embarking on a stupid narcissistic hike in the middle of nowhere. They just got into a relationship and treated their partner as they'd like to be treated. It's the golden rule, it's not rocket science.
It will not, at least not in the way that you think.
It would be. That doesn't describe the inner life of any woman who voluntarily entered into a relationship with a man she likes even if he's less than a perfect 10. You're describing a person who doesn't exist outside of your own warped imagination.
You shouldn't be seeking out a relationship with a woman who's disgusted by you. You should be seeking out a relationship with a woman who genuinely likes you and enjoys your company. I know you think the best you can hope for (based on the five or six women you've spoken to in your life for more than ten minutes) is a relationship with a woman who tolerates your presence even if she finds you faintly repulsive, but I am extremely confident that you are wrong, and I wish that you would at least give that possibility some sincere consideration for a few minutes.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link